I am be opening myself to attack here, but I was having a chat with an oppo of mine recently, cute burd but I've no chance, anyway...

We were talking about some of the hassle involved in FTRS, most of which seemed to be randomly generated by a certain office, run by a certain senior officer, who seemed to be unable to find jobs for anyone but a select few mates, and even then contracts, usually on the wrong commitment level are invariably late.

I sent my CV in to said office a few years ago when I was considering going FTRS. Was put forward for a job and was told I needed to go for an interview, which was no problem. Pitched up for the interview only to find out during the course of the interview that I was totally unsuitable and unqualified for the role. As a result, didn't get the job. All in all a rather annoying and demoralising experience.

1. Imagine you were a long serving rating considering a 2OE, and you think, well I have done my time at sea, it would be nice to get a cushty job at say Sandquay or Jupiter Point (not picking on the seaman specs, just great places to work) and some bloody FTRS RNR has nicked the job. Are you going to do that 2OE or are you going to sod off outside?

2. Youâ€™re senior officery type about to deploy a bunch of people to the next war and you find that you canâ€™t send a number of them because they are on home commitment. I am sure there are loads of people in the RN who would love to be guaranteed not to be send off somewhere.

3. CinCFleet, when he was 2SL was keen to talk about the flexible navy, allowing career breaks etc., I am sure the vast majority of people would agree to this but it hardly seems fair that the reservists on FTRS, especially LC/HC are effectively tied down (not always their choice) and cannot be readily deployed since it is not in their terms and conditions.

So what I am saying I suppose is that those kind of jobs tie up some fairly decent billets and they do not present the fleet with the best and most flexible options.

What would I do? FTRS would cease to be. You would join the RN on a fixed term contract and as part of the regular service you could be sent anywhere they can. On completion of the contract they can return to the part time service or be fully incorporated for a longer period, maybe an additional five years.

There are people out there in FTRS jobs who get it right; there are those who have willing put themselves in harms way. Theyâ€™re not the people with whom I have an issue, itâ€™s the ones whoâ€™ve been sitting on their fat shiny butts at various desks for many years coasting along that are ruining the system.

........What would I do? FTRS would cease to be. You would join the RN on a fixed term contract and as part of the regular service you could be sent anywhere they can. On completion of the contract they can return to the part time service or be fully incorporated for a longer period, maybe an additional five years..........

Click to expand...

Is this not part of the grand plan? The option to choose your level of service as family commitments etc. dictate, in particular to allow regulars the option to take a career break by dropping down to part time commitment without actually leaving.

Is this not part of the grand plan? The option to choose your level of service as family commitments etc. dictate, in particular to allow regulars the option to take a career break by dropping down to part time commitment without actually leaving.

Click to expand...

I believe that the idea about regular bods going RNR will happen. That would be a positive step forward for both full and part time service.

Worth pointing out that many of the FTRS jobs are actually done by ex regulars, rather than RNR. Can't remember the exact figures but an awful lot of those in jobs are not actually RNR and never will be.

Perhaps worth trying to distinguish between those and RNR, many of whom would love to do FTRS but find that 'jobs for the boys' prevails.

A lot of the shorebased FTRS billets for ratings went a few years ago with the introduction of TOPMAST.

Also, I thought Home Commitment/Local Commitment had gone, you had to sign up for Full Commitment.

I was FTRS at a shorebase for a couple of years, and regular RN couldn't complain about me taking up a shore draft 'cos it had been gapped for months!

I also put in for FTRS on one of the URNU boats. The officer in charge of said squadron nearly bit my hand off as the boat hadn't been able to sail for some time due to the billet being gapped and he wanted it operational in time for the summer university holidays. He notified the drafty and guess what? The billet was immediately filled by an OM!

I thought that Full Commitment was removed a few years ago as it attracted full X-factor and thus was cheaper to employ people on Home Commitment with no X-factor.

Click to expand...

Can only comment on my own experience. I was on a HC but when I extended it I was told it had to be FC. Didn't bother me, I preferred the extra money.

I know of a chef who was RFR who didn't sign up for FTRS at the aforementioned shorebase 'cos he suspected once they put him on a FC contract they'd send him straight back to sea and after twenty two years and with a young family he'd had enough.

Havenâ€™t been looking at it for a few years now but I remember that FTRS tended to be viewed badly by serving personnel because it reduced the number of shore billets available and often resulted in Non Pre when shore time was due. That said, human nature being what it is, there is a completely different perspective when youâ€™re on the outside looking in for some extra time in uniform.

The really annoying thing was that the extra time â€œservedâ€ didnâ€™t count towards pension, regardless of the type of contract. I donâ€™t know if this is still the case.

A slightly different tack from the previous posts but I have been having a bit of trouble with understanding the FTRS concept myself just lately.

The principal issue for me is the length of the contract - you need 2 years to get onto the pension ladder but contracts are (seemingly) being offered for a maximum of 1 year.

I can see that someone out of a job could be more than happy to accept a 1-year lifeline but what if you need someone to do a job who is already in gainful employment (ie you need him to either take a sabbattical or leave his job for an uncertain future working with the Navy)?

Is this 1-year contract thing common practise or am I just being spoon fed something dark brown and not treacle flavoured?

I believe 1 year contracts are more common now. My "Guess" is that its to do with endless pressure on the finance (we've got the CSR coming up and Defence is once again in the Treasury's sights).

If we took someone on for two years we may find it harder to lose them quickly, but a one year contract could be offered up to the great god of Finance for some quick win savings (and likely reinstatement shortly afterwards).

The RAF seem to have adopted a different tack on FTRS, many of their FTRS posts are created by permanantly regrading a regular post as HC FTRS i.e. not gap-filling but cost-saving (individuals prefer it to MSF because the deal seems to be better?)

I don't think that's the way to go (picture the scene in Parliament, things are getting tight in Iraqistan and the Defence Minister says, "Chief of the Air Force why don't you mobilise all those Reserves you've been training?" His Airship blusters, "Actually Minister we've been using them full-time for years to make ends meet, there's no one else left to recall"

The RAF seem to have adopted a different tack on FTRS, many of their FTRS posts are created by permanantly regrading a regular post as HC FTRS i.e. not gap-filling but cost-saving (individuals prefer it to MSF because the deal seems to be better?)

I don't think that's the way to go (picture the scene in Parliament, things are getting tight in Iraqistan and the Defence Minister says, "Chief of the Air Force why don't you mobilise all those Reserves you've been training?" His Airship blusters, "Actually Minister we've been using them full-time for years to make ends meet, there's no one else left to recall"

What do others think?

Click to expand...

I have to say that while I share your concern over the way the RAF 'interprets' the rules I have (once again) a sneaking regard for the fact that the RAF always seem to be prepared to see rules as guidelines not tramlines.

I rather wish the RN was a bit better at recognising that there are often 'special cases' that need 'special treatment'.

I don't think its so much a case of seeing the rules as guidelines...
although I think it was Douglas Bader who said, "Rules and for the obeyance of fools and the guidance of wisemen"... but rather that they're behaviour is more like the teenager who says "you never told me I couldn't do it!"

End result still undoubtedly in their favour, just with less grace... and the result is they're still over-manned.

I don't think its so much a case of seeing the rules as guidelines...
although I think it was Douglas Bader who said, "Rules and for the obeyance of fools and the guidance of wisemen"... but rather that they're behaviour is more like the teenager who says "you never told me I couldn't do it!"

End result still undoubtedly in their favour, just with less grace... and the result is they're still over-manned.

Click to expand...

You could be right Pierre, either way they seem to consciously look for ways to work around the rules to achieve what they want - very un-British but then they are the RAF!

Personally I have always been in favour of joining queues at the end rather than pushing into the middle, standing back to let people OFF the train first and other very British traits - it doesn't always get me very far.

Personally I have always been in favour of joining queues at the end rather than pushing into the middle, standing back to let people OFF the train first and other very British traits - it doesn't always get me very far.